Greatest Middleweight once and for all- Greb? Monzon? Hagler?

[Nate 2011]

Marvelous Marvin Hagler
Sugar Ray Robinson
Stanley Ketchel
Mel Greb
Carlos Monzon

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Theron

I made a thread asking about a fantasy fight about Monzon vs Hagler but a lot of people seemed to disagree with me that Harry Greb was the greatest Middleweight of all time which i definatley think he is, if he's not who is to you?

The Criteria i picked Greb on was pretty much just amount of quality opponents beaten as we can't actually watch him fight but we can see his record of beating 18 future present or past champions, defeating men in higher weight classes than himself, i love this quote about Greb it sums up why i think he's the greatest middleweight ever
“Greb may have been the greatest fighter, pound-for-pound, who ever lived. Certainly, he was among the top 2 or 3. He combined the speed of Ray Robinson, the durability of Jim Jeffries, the stamina of Henry Armstrong, and the unbridled ferocity of Stanley Ketchel with a will to win unsurpassed in the annals of sport. At his peak, he was unbeatable, defeating virtually every middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight of his generation. A great, great fighter.”

I think I would say Greb.no1 But apart from Monzon,Hagler ,SRR, you have Fitz, Ketchel in the mix. How good was Langford at 160lbs?

[Bill Butcher]

Robinson

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by Bill Butcher

Robinson

Yeah.

[Flea Man]

Kalambay of course

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Kalambay of course

The real question is whether Sal could cut a Top 5 feather list:

----> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] <-----

[Theron]

I really think Robinson should be rated at Welterweight where he was best...

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Theron

I really think Robinson should be rated at Welterweight where he was best...

it's pretty incredible he's arguably the best of all time in two of the most stacked divisions historically.

i'd rate robinson 4th tbh...greb, monzon, hagler, robinson

[house1234]

Bernard hopkins is in the top three middlewights of all time. He has the best resume in middlewight history.

Holds the record for most middleweight title defenses and longest tilte reign and must consecutive defenses .

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by house1234

Bernard hopkins is in the top three middlewights of all time. He has the best resume in middlewight history.

Holds the record for most middleweight title defenses and longest tilte reign and must consecutive defenses .

1)no
2)of an alphabet title
3)of an alphabet title
4)of an alphabet title

the problem with hopkins is that he has few great fighters on his middleweight resume. the best is tito, who was a natural welter but moved up well. the second best name is oscar, who had no business at 160. the rest of his run is filled with good but not great fighters, welters and guys who were near shot

getting outhustled by taylor twice does not help his case and he was dominated by the best boxer he ever shared a ring with in jones

[Lord Tywin]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

1)no
2)of an alphabet title
3)of an alphabet title
4)of an alphabet title

the problem with hopkins is that he has few great fighters on his middleweight resume. the best is tito, who was a natural welter but moved up well. the second best name is oscar, who had no business at 160. the rest of his run is filled with good but not great fighters, welters and guys who were near shot

getting outhustled by taylor twice does not help his case and he was dominated by the best boxer he ever shared a ring with in jones

The only reason anyone can complain about Hopkins' "alphabet title" is because the other middleweight champions avoided him for years. When he finally got them in the ring he dominated them.

Carlos Monzon only had ten defenses of a unified title. Monzon was stripped of his WBC title after the Napoles fight for avoiding his top challenger and would continue to do so for three years while defending his alphabet title.

If you want to argue between alphabet titles and unified titles Hagler has the record of defenses.

Some fans argue the merits of lineal vs. unified vs. alphabet and whether or not fighters getting stripped of their titles is legitimate. I think when a fighter refuses to defend against his universally recognized top contender for three years there is merit in stripping him.

I think there is merit in considering an alphabet holder "the champ" when he chases all of the other alphabet holders for years on end and finally dominates them when he catches them.

It would be ridiculous, to my way of thinking, that anyone could question that Hopkins was "the man" at middleweight from the time he won the IBF title until he lost to Jermain Taylor.

However, I dont think Hopkins is the greatest middleweight ever. He would be tough for anyone but I dont think he was the greatest fighter in history's greatest division. I also dont think he lost to Taylor eithe time and dont think he was dominated by Jones either. 116-112 is not being dominated.

[Flea Man]

Hopkins had some truly abysmal challengers mind.

BTW Nightcrawler I'd consider middle around Tito's 'natural' weight, a small middle though. Was always a big welter IMO and got sturdier as he moved up. IMO B-Hop's best win and I do think Trinidad was a top challenge for him. He'd beaten the two best 11 stone fighters and a top 5 middle (admittedly only above average Joppy) and was considered one of the top punchers in the sport.

I think people tend to underrate the win because the consensus is that 'Tito' was not a 'proper' middleweight. I disagree although Hopkins had a big height advantage (as he did most at his weight)

Anyone know Hopkins' fight night weight for that one? And Trinidad's for that matter? Never bothered to find out funnily enough.

Tywin But well beaten by a mainly one armed fighter all the same.

[KuRuPT]

I just don't see greb as the best MW in history.. He didn't do enough and beat enough quality in that division to be considered so. It's like saying Duran is a better Welterweight than SRL.. Because he has some good wins there... and is the better p4p fighter.. than by some of your standards is lower and upper weight jump victories matter in a division that he didn't fight in as much.. That makes ZERO sense. Greb did his best work at LHW.. PERIOD. Conflating what he could've done at MW with what he did at LWH is faulty reasoning and not logical.

[KuRuPT]

BTW for me it's SRR, Hagler, Monzon, hopkins and then Greb

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Lord Tywin

The only reason anyone can complain about Hopkins' "alphabet title" is because the other middleweight champions avoided him for years. When he finally got them in the ring he dominated them.

Carlos Monzon only had ten defenses of a unified title. Monzon was stripped of his WBC title after the Napoles fight for avoiding his top challenger and would continue to do so for three years while defending his alphabet title.

If you want to argue between alphabet titles and unified titles Hagler has the record of defenses.

Some fans argue the merits of lineal vs. unified vs. alphabet and whether or not fighters getting stripped of their titles is legitimate. I think when a fighter refuses to defend against his universally recognized top contender for three years there is merit in stripping him.

I think there is merit in considering an alphabet holder "the champ" when he chases all of the other alphabet holders for years on end and finally dominates them when he catches them.

It would be ridiculous, to my way of thinking, that anyone could question that Hopkins was "the man" at middleweight from the time he won the IBF title until he lost to Jermain Taylor.

However, I dont think Hopkins is the greatest middleweight ever. He would be tough for anyone but I dont think he was the greatest fighter in history's greatest division. I also dont think he lost to Taylor eithe time and dont think he was dominated by Jones either. 116-112 is not being dominated.

quality post don't disagree vehemently with anything in this. good analysis of the lineal vs alphabet system

while i had taylor beating him twice, other scores are easily justifiable. and domination is a relative (and maybe extreme term). well done